Did the Indian removal policy, and the conflicts waged in order to implement it, meet the criteria of a just war by Aquinas’ standards?
Watch the Carnegie Endowment Lecture video about the morality of professional soldiers serving in an unjust war. See link at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-2Z0FsViJE
Read Chapters 3 and 4 in The ethics of war and peace: An introduction to legal and moral issues: 978-0-13-092383-7
Read Indian Removal Act of 1830 at https://www.nativehistoryassociation.org/removal.php
Write a 500-750 word paper on the following topic.
Thomas Aquinas, as discussed in the text (pp. 49-53), noted three criteria (among others) for a just war:
1. To amend an injustice perpetrated by another state.
2. To address an injustice perpetrated by residents of another state.
3. To re-acquire (take back) property or possessions unjustly seized by another state.
He also advanced the theory of double effect which states that, when considering the possible good/bad effects of any act of aggression, such aggression is ethically permissible if:
1. Its bad effects are unintended.
2. The bad effects don’t outweigh the magnitude of the good effects.
3. There are no alternatives to the aggression that could avoid the bad effect.
In addition, St. Augustine added that the final objective of a just war must always be peace (42).
Between 1820 and 1860 in the United States, there were numerous Native American (Indian) nations and tribes still living in vast territories east of the Mississippi River. In 1824 President Monroe suggested that all Indians be moved—either voluntarily or forcibly, if necessary—west of the Mississippi, in order to remove threats to Americans living nearby and to make room for the development and settlement of this undeveloped area for millions of Americans needing the land and resources. In 1829-30 President Andrew Jackson obtained legislative support for this action and supporters of the Indian removal policy cited several reasons in support of its morality:
1. The protection of American citizens who had been coming into conflict with Indians living around these areas.
2. The protection and safety of the Indians themselves, who had long been suffering from poverty, disease, and rapidly decreasing populations because of prior wars, disease, and displacements.
3. Many of these territories had been claimed and recognized for a long time as U.S. territories (after prior wars with Indians there) but only remained unoccupied because Indians were still living there.
4. The needs of millions of Americans who wanted access to these lands/resources as compared with the needs of relatively few thousands of Indians who lived poorly, didn’t develop the land, and could live elsewhere just as easily.
The U.S. Supreme Court, under Justice John Marshall, considered the U.S. government’s claims against the Indians via two cases brought against the U.S. government in 1831 by the Cherokee tribe. The Court concluded that the United States had made legitimate and binding treaties recognizing the territorial sovereignty of the tribe over this land, and ruled that the United States could not legally force them to relinquish it. President Jackson, however, did not agree with the Court’s ruling and said, “John Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.”
The removal policy thus went forward, eventually relocating most Indian tribes to unfamiliar lands west of the Mississippi. Several tribes, such as the Seminoles, fought successfully against relocation, but the vast majority were moved by the thousands, resulting in thousands dying of starvation, disease, and fighting with U.S. soldiers along the way. The land onto which they were relocated was largely unfit for hunting, and they became even more demoralized and impoverished after being re-settled there. Their former territories did, however, become prosperous and populous regions of the United States and the cultivation and commercial exploitation of these lands increased prosperity for millions of Americans.
• Did the Indian removal policy, and the conflicts waged in order to implement it, meet the criteria of a just war by Aquinas’ standards?
• Did it violate the principle of double effect?
• Did it violate or satisfy St. Augustine’s additional criteria for just war?
• Was the U.S. government’s argument a valid and an ethical one? What would have been a reasonable and ethical policy, in your opinion?